UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

The bicentennial of '1813-1815' and national history writing: remarks on a new consensus

Lok, M. DOI 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10148 Publication date 2015 Document Version Final published version Published in Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden License CC BY Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Lok, M. (2015). The bicentennial of '1813-1815' and national history writing: remarks on a new consensus. Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 130(4), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10148

General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of , Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

Download date:28 Sep 2021 bmgn - Low Countries Historical Review | Volume 130-4 (2015) | pp. 111-120

The Bicentennial of ‘1813-1815’ and National History Writing Remarks on a New Consensus

111 matthijs lok

In this article the problem of (dis)continuity after 1815 is addressed from the perspective of the Northern Netherlands. First, the contemporary view is examined. Because of the impossibility of finding a useful national past, the United Kingdom was founded on a promise for future. Secondly, the perspective shifts to the bicentennial of 1813-1815. The article argues that the bicentennial saw the establishment of a new historiographical consensus: the formerly ignored is now firmly incorporated in the national historical narrative of ‘1813’. Nevertheless, many subjects such as the Napoleonic era, the interaction between social and political history, conservatism and the security state still deserve further research.

De tweehonderdjarige herdenking van ‘1813-1815’ en de nationale geschiedschrijving. Opmerkingen over een nieuwe consensus In dit artikel wordt ingegaan op de problematiek van (dis)continuïteit vanuit Noord-Nederlands perspectief. Ten eerste wordt het perspectief van de tijdgenoten van 1813 bestudeerd en de vergeefse zoektocht naar een bruikbaar gemeenschappelijk verleden voor het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Vervolgens wordt gekeken naar het belang van de herdenking van 2015 voor de Nederlandse geschiedwetenschap. Betoogd wordt dat een nieuwe wetenschappelijke consensus is ontstaan waarbij de erfenis van de Bataafse Revolutie geïncorporeerd is in het bestaande nationale narratief van 1813, maar ook worden verschillende onderwerpen aangestipt die tot op heden nog onvoldoende aandacht hebben gekregen ondanks de veelheid aan publicaties over ‘1813’ in de afgelopen jaren.

Published by Royal Netherlands Historical Society | knhg Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License doi: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10148 | www.bmgn-lchr.nl | e-issn 2211-2898 | print issn 0615-0505 forum

‘Back in time’ versus ‘a whole new era’?

Contemporaries disagreed about whether the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire and the restoration of an independent Dutch state in November 1813 was a return to a remote past or a new beginning in national time. The well-known Batavian politician, academic and writer Johannes van der Palm (1763-1840) for instance, in his pamphlet Vaderlandsche Uitboezeming argued that the history of the against Spain was being repeated in the ‘revolution’ (omwenteling) of November 1813. Just as in the late sixteenth century a foreign tyrant has been driven away and national liberty was restored according to the former Dutch patriot, ‘Am I dreaming or am I awake? By what unknown force do I find myself two centuries back in time on the stage of history?’1 Others regarded the establishment of the kingdom of the Netherlands in first instance not as a return to the glorious revolt of the sixteenth century but on the contrary as essentially a new beginning in national history. ‘A whole new era in our national existence begins. By the grace of God, we have received our former fatherland, albeit in a new form and in new circumstances’, the anonymous author of the Aanspraak aan het herstelde volk van Nederland (1813) declared.2 Although early nineteenth-century publicists disagreed whether the ‘revolution’ (omwenteling) of 1813 was going back in time or a new beginning (or both at the same time), they almost all agreed that the restoration of the Dutch provinces presented a rupture with the recently ended rule of the ‘man-eating monster’ and ‘brutal tyrant’ Napoleon.3 The shaping of a new historical and temporal regime formed an important part of the formation of a new political order.4 In this essay I will explore the problem of (dis)continuity of the years 1813-1815 from the Dutch perspective in two ways.5 First, I will turn my attention to the insufficiently studied contemporary perceptions of historical change and temporality in 1813-1815, placing special emphasis on the

1 J.H. van der Palm, Vaderlandsche Uitboezeming establishment of the Restoration regimes. French ( 1813) 3. historians Judith Lyon-Caen and Emmanuel Fureix 2 [Anonymous], Aanspraak aan het herstelde volk are using the ‘experience of (dis)continuity’ as a van Nederland (Amsterdam 1813) 13-14. new perspective to study the events of 1814-1815 3 See on the Dutch anti-Napoleonic discourse: in France. They argue that the perspective of L. Jensen, Verzet tegen Napoleon (Nijmegen 2013). (dis)continuity is a more appropriate historical 4 On the concept of ‘historical regime’: F. Hartog, theoretical framework than the often invoked Régimes de historicité: Présentisme et expériences du theory of ‘regime change’, derived from temps (Paris 2003). the political sciences, with its often implicit 5 The experience of (dis)continuity is not a unique ideological and democratic connotations. See the historiographical problem in the Dutch context thematic issue of the Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle but also relevant for international research on the 49:2 (2014). lok the bicentennial of ‘1813-1815’ and national history writing 113 William the Silent. The brutality the Silent. William Oranje’s (S.l. [Anonymous], Oranje’s tafellied 1813); Oranje ware alle van dienste ten liedeboek, vaderlandsch heuchelijke de van gedachtenis Ter vaderlanders. juk, 19 het slaafsche van verlossing en omwending Franschen der overheersching de onder lang, jaren 6. 1813) (Rotterdam Nassouwen van Wilhelmus volkslied: Het origineele noodige en dichter vermoedelijke oorsprong, deszelfs stukken van verzameling der dienstig opheldering, 1813); (Leiden Nederland van verlossing de over . volkslied Nieuw Loosjes, 9 First ofall the memory of the Revolt 9 7 Specific themes within the larger Revolt Specific themes within the larger Revolt This statement certainly holds true for This statement 8 6

“Een (Manchester2007) De negentiende eeuw negentiende ’, De the Netherlands in 1813. Especially the memory of the sixteenth-centurythe Netherlands in 1813. revived in the preceding years of used was Revolt, Napoleonic rule, Dutch to the confusing events as an interpretative framework to give meaning of and December 1813. November provided a general narrative of a national struggle for freedom against a In many poems published in 1813 and 1814 Napoleon was foreign tyrant. were new Castilians trying in described as the new Philip II and the French freedom. to smother Dutch vain The English historian of memory Geoffrey Cubitt states that, ‘Events may ofThe English historian Geoffrey Cubitt states that, memory from patterns ofalso take on significance in expectation that are rooted the memory of earlier episodes’. (problematic) memory of the sixteenth-century Dutch Revolt. Second, I will I of memory (problematic) Second, the sixteenth-century Revolt. Dutch interpretation historical the current and discuss centuries two forward jump of of the (dis)continuity commemoration on the bicentennial focusing 1813, were narratives that that national historical I will argue in 2013-2015. ways but in other survived, have ways in 1813-1815 in certain fabricated that has appeared consensus down and a new historiographical broken have I At the end of of incorporates the legacy this essay, Batavian Revolution. the ‘historiographical consensus’. blank spaces in the new will point out some memory were used in the early nineteenth century. Sixteenth-century heroes century. memory were used in the early nineteenth Werff der were described as role models for the Van as the Leiden mayor such and the returned Prince of Dutchmen post-Napoleonic naturally Orange was regarded as the reincarnation of pater patriae of the massacre by French soldiers in Woerden was seen as the nineteenth- ofWoerden was soldiers in by French the massacre Sixteenth-century literary forms were also used for the ‘Naarden’. century was for instance, Wilhelmus expressions of Marnix’ patriotism after 1813. adapted to the new circumstances. Nieuw volkslied op eene oude wijs, of oude eene op volkslied Nieuw G.Cubitt, Historyand Memory 208. moreSee extensively: M.M. Lok, ‘ geheel nieuw tijdperk van ons bestaan”. De herinnering aan de Nederlandse Opstand en de temporaliteit van “1813” 67-82. (2014) 38:2 forSee instance, Martinus Gerardus Engelman, 1814 jaars des aanvang den bij Dichtgedachten, Adriaan to] 3; [Attributed (Amsterdam 1813) Loosjes, Competing political memories: political The contemporary (dis)continuity of perspective Competing 6 7 8 forum

The use of the memory of the Revolt in public discourse in 1813- 1814, however, was not without its problems. First of all, the Revolt was not the only frame used in contemporary public discourse. Also many references can be found in the Bible (the Empire as the new Babylon captivity and the Emperor as Nebuchadnezzar) or, perhaps more surprisingly after the fall and discrediting of the , to the Batavian myth. In many pamphlets no historical reference can be found at all. Furthermore, pamphleteers also distanced their own time from the sixteenth century and the remote past in general. This be can seen most explicitly in Jacobus Scheltema’s Vergelijking van de afschudding van het Spaansche juk in 1572 met die van het Fransche in 1813 (1813). In this pamphlet the Revolt is very unfavourably compared to the ‘revolution’ of 1813. In almost every aspect the nineteenth century is regarded as superior (‘onze betere toestand’). The oppression by the Spanish inquisition was not nearly as severe as that of the Napoleonic police, according to Scheltema. In contrast to the foreign usurper Napoleon, Philip II had been more or less the legitimate lord of the Netherlands. Moreover the Revolt against Philip had been the work of an aristocratic elite, whereas ‘1813’ was the achievement of the Netherlandish people as a whole. The relative non-violent character of the regime change was attributed by Scheltema to the civilised nature of the nineteenth-century Dutch.10 In the first histories of the events of 1813, in the introduction a comparison is often made between ‘1572’ en ‘1813’, which puts the more recent transition in a favourable light. In his Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche staats-omwenteling (1814) Herman Bosscha argues that in 1813 the flawed Dutch constitution of the was perfected in the new state under William I.11 The amalgamation of the Northern and the Southern Netherlands in 1815 made the memory of the Dutch revolt even more problematic as the dominant framework for the historical interpretation of current events. In official discourse the Revolt was increasingly seen not as a triumph of liberty, but as the tragedy of the splitting of the Netherlands the United Kingdom had finally overcome. Attempts were made to replace – or reconcile – the memory of the revolt with the myth of a Burgundian pan-Netherlandish Golden Age. William I described himself as the natural successor of Charles V, with a mission to complete the aborted attempts of state formation in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century.12 However the Burgundian myth never really took hold as a dominant political memory in the new Kingdom.

10 J. Scheltema, Vergelijking van de afschudding van 12 Speech by William I to the newly installed het Spaansche juk in 1572 met die van het Fransche in Estates-General (Staten-Generaal) 21 September 1813 (Amsterdam 1813) passim. 1815, Handelingen van de Staten-Generaal 11 H. Bosscha, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche gedurende de vergaderingen van 1815-1816, staats-omwenteling in achttienhonderddertien, J.J. Noordziek (ed.) (The Hague 1889). See also deel I (Amsterdam 1814) 4. www.statengeneraaldigitaal.nl. lok the bicentennial of ‘1813-1815’ and national history writing 115 As remote 14 13 “Un The oubli passé”?: du total 26:2 (2014) 40-75. (2014) 26:2 Taal, cultuurbeleid en cultuurbeleid (eds.),and J. Taal, Weijermars I (Brussels 2011). Willem onder natievorming forSee the Dutch politics under forgetting of perspective: European Willem I in a comparative M.M. Lok, ‘ and Construction Social Political in Silence of History and (1813-1830)’, Europe Restoration Memory 15 15 . ), peace and stability as the foundations of his rule. The peace and stability as the foundations of), his rule. Above all, it seems, in the absence of in the absence the new an appropriate past, it seems, all, Above Perhaps exemplary for the lack of lack exemplary for the in the political past a univocal Perhaps Kingdom was founded on a promise for the future. Primarily William William Primarily founded on a promise for the future. Kingdom was a true his new kingdom without defended his initially uncertain rule over historical precedent in terms of prosperity and stability. development, and would end the internal strife Good administration and paternal rule ofThis future oriented character the United create unity in the near future. Kingdom of the Netherlands contrasted with other Restoration regimes. on reconciliation, Louis XVIII also laid emphasis In France for instance, forgetting (oubli explicitly described in terms of was however, restored Bourbon monarchy continuation of with the revolution and Napoleonic era regarded as an time, The main goal of the French la Charte, unfortunate ceremonial interregnum. of renew the chain ‘to constitution of according to the preamble was 1814, pamphlet The early nineteenth century according to many French time’. sixteenth not seen as particularly different or distant from the writers was United Kingdom is the failure of is the failure United Kingdom commission of the state under 1826, to appoint a royal Maanen, van Cornelis Felix servant loyal most William’s a unifying ) and to commission des Rijks historiographer (geschiedschrijver a new history of hope that the William’s history of the United Netherlands. lead original source material would automatically Netherlands based on disappointed. and unifying national past was ‘objective’ to an Many northerners regarded the new United Kingdom ofKingdom United the new regarded northerners Many as in essence 1815 ofthe continuation in into being that had come nation state and Dutch the many unfortunately for territory and, with an enlarged only now 1813-1814, of augmented number an Catholics. Dutchmen, Protestant history was unsuitable for nation building, the memory of the unsuitable for nation building, history was the very recent past not only between used as a means ofwas forgetting the political divisions, ofThe memory both parts of but also within North and South, the country. and above all the near martyrdom of and Quatrebras, the battles ofWaterloo shining ‘two words as I’s William were to be regarded in the crown prince, attitude toward William’s of in the construction the new kingdom. pillars’ past can be described as an implicit the problematic Batavian and Napoleonic politics of forgetting or oubli J. Tollebeek, ‘Een gedwongen plooi. ‘Een gedwongen GeschiedenisJ. Tollebeek, Koninkrijk van Willem I’, in het Verenigde schrijven for See 203-223. (2014) 38:3 eeuw negentiende De the at cultural attempts nation building: R. Vosters J. Leerssen, ‘De Nederlandse natie’, in: I. de Haan, (eds.), nieuwe den Hoed and Een H. Velde te P. Nederlanden der het Koninkrijk staat. Het begin van 319-340. (Amsterdam 2013)

14 13 forum

century. The revolutionary wars were described as the mere sequel to the sixteenth-century religious wars.16

The bicentennial: A new consensus?

The political fabrication in the Northern Netherlands of ‘1813’ as a new beginning in national time and the framing of the Batavian and Napoleonic regimes as a period of foreign oppression situated outside national history (the ‘French period’ as it is commonly called) has had a long afterlife.17 Even those contemporaries such as the Kantian philosopher Johannes Kinker, who expressed a more nuanced vision on the Batavian and Napoleonic experience, described the years 1795-1813, especially after 1806, as period of ‘Babylonian captivity’. In the influential early twentieth-century (source) publications of Johanna Naber and Herman Colenbrander, this essentially national and Orangist interpretation of the Batavian and Napoleonic era is more or less revived. The Napoleonic period was analysed almost exclusively from the dominant perspective of the establishment of the Orange monarchy after 1813 (Overheersing (oppression) and Verlossing (deliverance) were the terms used by Naber). In the decades after World War II interest in ‘1813’ gradually disappeared. The commemoration of 1963 demonstrated, if anything, the lack of interest in the early nineteenth century events by the post-war generation. To what extent are the national historical narratives crafted in 1813 still present in the bicentennial of 2013? On one hand, a certain continuity of national historical discourse can be observed. The bicentennial was above all publicly celebrated as a ‘new beginning’ and the return of national ‘freedom’ after a period of foreign domination.18 On the other hand, a ‘reconciliation’ of the Batavian revolutionary past, but not (or to a far lesser extent) of the Napoleonic legacy, with the Dutch history writing of the Kingdom of the Netherlands can also be discerned. In terms of historiography, the commemoration of 2013-2015 can be regarded as the capstone of the emancipation of the historiography of the Patriot and Batavian revolution

16 N. Scholz, Die imaginierte Restauration. vrijheid”. “1813” als Nederlandse Repräsentationen der Monarchie in Frankreich oorsprongsmythe’, Jaarboek parlementaire Ludwigs XVIII (Darmstadt 2006); M.M. Lok and geschiedenis (2013) 13-22 (a shortened English N. Scholz, ‘The Return of the Loving Father: version of this article has appeared in The Low Masculinity, Legitimacy and the French and Dutch Countries 21 (2013). Restoration Monarchies (1813-1815)’, bmgn-Low 18 The contemporary interpretation of the state of Countries Historical Review 127:1 (2012) 19-44, William I as a ‘new beginning’ in national time is doi: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.1564. still very much alive. See for instance the official 17 See more extensively on this political or commemorative volume of the bicentennial: De institutional myth: M.M. Lok, ‘ “Herwonnen Haan et al. (eds.), Een nieuwe staat. lok the bicentennial of ‘1813-1815’ and national history writing 117 20 By means of 21 Bataafse experiment. Politiek en cultuur rond 1800 rond cultuur en Politiek experiment. Bataafse 7-25. (Nijmegen 2013) N. van Sas, 1813. Toespraak moment. historisch Een 200 jaar van viering de start van officiële de van 2013 30 november Haag – Den Ridderzaal koninkrijk 200 Nationaal(uitgave jaar Koninkrijk). Comité Translated Forgetting. History, Memory, Ricoeur, P. 2004) 452. (Chicago Pellauer D. K. and by Blamey publications, forSee these for instance website: the official commemorative https://www.200jaarkoninkrijk.nl/ 20 21 22 I will not go into the colonial and non- 22 The ‘culture of silence’ ofduring constructed of past, the revolutionary silence’ ‘culture The However, as Paul Ricoeur has noted, ‘seeing one thing is not seeing ‘seeing noted, Ricoeur has as Paul However, [...] for the Netherlands, was first all a restoration of national of ‘1813’ independence the of and the of achievements at the same time a consolidation Batavian-French period as the such unitary state and the rule [written] law. of In his speech during the official commemoration of during the In his speech the bicentennial 19 European dimension of ‘1813-1815’ or into the North-South divide as these ‘1813-1815’ European dimension of are subjects of other essays in this issue. another. Recounting one drama is forgetting another’. Recounting one drama is forgetting another. This view of interpreting ‘1813’ as the nationalisation of as the the Batavian ‘1813’ This view of interpreting legacy in the new context of the Kingdom of now seems the Netherlands wider public. uncontroversial among historians and the that had started with the bicentennial of the Patriot revolution of revolution of bicentennial with the started that had 1787 in Patriot the 1987. concluding this essay, I would like to indicate six topics that, in my view, in my view, six topics that, I would like to indicate concluding this essay, not received the attention they deserve in the flood ofhave bicentennial from the perspective of seem particularly relevant publications and which the experience of (dis)continuity. on 30 November 2013 in the Ridderzaal in The Hague, under the very eyes of under Hague, The in the Ridderzaal in on 30 November 2013 of sovereign historian Amsterdam the current Dutch House of the Orange, Sas emphasised the importance ofNiek van legacy of the Batavian equal Sas’s Van state for the new kingdom. constitution and a univocal civil rights, ofanswer to the question posed by Johan Huizinga we should celebrate, what as follows: was in 1913, the Restoration era itself, now seems to have finally ended, at least in academic at least finally ended, to have now seems era itself, the Restoration its history has lost Batavian ifhistory writing opinion. not in wider public some specialists of have the period historiography, in Dutch status ‘subaltern’ era has revolutionary the (post-) Indeed, slight nostalgia. perhaps with noted, specialists even for academic period to study, currently become a fashionable ofand the twentieth century. the Early Modern period The re-evaluation the of Batavian moment in Dutch history started in the 1980s. No doubt the the turn political new to and by influenced cultural history Dutch revolution the of French historians started in the interested become to political the and culture of patriot the Batavian era. commemorations The 1787 of bicentennial a constant stream new led of to onwards have publications on political the culture of late for See a short century. eighteenth overview: F. (eds.), HetGrijzenhout, Velema N. van Sas and W. 19 forum

First of all, it must be concluded that the Napoleonic period has profited far less than the Batavian period from the new historiographical reconciliation in 2013. The regimes between 1801 and 1813 – Staatsbewind, Gemenebest, Koninkrijk Holland and above all the Annexation of 1810- 1813 – are still insufficiently studied.23 In contrast to French history, the Dutch ‘Thermidor’ so far has not received the attention it deserves. The ‘Inlijving’ is still often described as the foreign ‘occupation’ (bezetting), which does not form part of national history. Perhaps unsurprisingly, only the popular and literary resistance against Napoleon and the development of a ‘depolitised Dutch national identity’ have received ample attention from historians of the period. A study of the administration of the Dutch provinces as part of the huge Napoleonic empire, which integrates the Dutch case in international research on this topic and does not regard the years 1810-1813 from the perspective of its outcome, is therefore urgently needed.24 Secondly, it could be argued that the contemporary opponents of the reconciliation and those who dreamed of alternative outcomes of 1813 have not received enough attention, although they were undoubtedly a minority and their criticism was often voiced indirectly or anonymously. In 1813 some former patriots feared that a returned Prince of Orange would lead to retribution being visited upon revolutionaries, as happened in 1787, and they dreamed of the restoration of the Batavian republic in a new form. Some reactionary opponents wished for a full Restoration of the ancient order: they were disappointed by the moderation of the new regime of William I and his (unspoken) striving for a ‘fusion’ between Revolution and Ancien Régime inspired by the Napoleonic model.25 Thirdly, more systematic research could also be done on the continuation of republican ideas after 1813 and the connection between the early modern tradition of republicanism and nineteenth-century liberalism, following international developments.26 The development and character

23 The recent publications of Annie Jourdan, 25 See for a study of (liberal) opposition under Martijn van der Burg and Johan Joor are the William I: J.C. van Zanten, Schielijk, Winzucht, main exceptions to this general neglect of the Zwaarhoofd en Bedaard. Politieke discussie en Napoleonic period. oppositievorming, 1813-1840 (Amsterdam 2004). 24 See for a short overview, M. Lok and 26 Some publications have appeared on this topic: M. van der Burg: ‘The Dutch Case: The N. van Sas, ‘De Republiek voorbij. Over de Kingdom of Holland and the Imperial transitie van republicanisme naar liberalisme’, Departments’, in: M. Broers, P. Hicks and A. in: Grijzenhout, Bataafse experiment, 65-102; Guimerá (eds.), The Napoleonic Empire and the M. Rutjes, Door gelijkheid gegrepen. Democratie, New European Political Culture (Basingstoke burgerschap en staat in Nederland, 1795-1801 2012) 100-111. (Nijmegen 2012). lok the bicentennial of ‘1813-1815’ and national history writing 119 , 30 More generally, the generally, More 27 29 Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis historisch onderzoek’, Tijdschrift Geschiedenis voor 189-209. (2014) 127:2 J. I, Willem Koch, 1772-1843 Koning (Amsterdam J. II,2013); Willem van Zanten, Koning 1792-1849 (Amsterdam 2013). Sirtema van C.F. van Grovestins, Gedenkschriften baron den van en Maasdam van Duyn der Van graaf (Amsterdam 22. 1853) Capellen der Van Frederik K. Tippe, Overijsselschman’. ‘Een echte (1791-1874). Burger, Wubben Ebbinge Allard omgeving rurale in een historicus en bestuurder (Groningen 2010). 29 30 31 To what extent was the new elite of what extent was the kingdom formed To 28 Joke Roelevink has pointed out the continuities between the between the Joke Roelevink has pointed out the continuities 31 after 1813. of fifth omission is the survival after 1813. the Ancien Régime A Although recent decades have seen a very successful integration of seen a very successful have Although recent decades Although William I himself, according to Van der Duyn van Maasdam, had had Maasdam, der Duyn van Van according to I himself, William Although had unsufficiently cleaned already often complained that the Revolution ) of Republic the old (aristocratisch-prullerarij debris’ ‘aristocratic up the of study. a separate also deserves conservatism Dutch , Napoleonic and Restoration Napoleonic and Restoration bureaucratic procedures of, the Ancien Régime cultural, above all literary, and political history, the connections between the connections between political history, and above all literary, cultural, from the especially far less, been explored have political and social history would constitute a This aspect perspective of after 1813. (dis)continuity fourth blank spot. intellectual dimensions of the Dutch Sattelzeit have been less studied. A A dimensions ofintellectual been less studied. have Sattelzeit the Dutch history intellectual that in the Netherlands this neglect might be reason for Anglo-Saxon the in developed than for instance, subfield is less as a historical as themselves to describe seem still wary historians generally Dutch world and historians’. ‘intellectual by former Batavians and Orangists in the societies and reading clubs during and Orangists in the societies and reading by former Batavians differences between North and South Annexation? How were political the argued can be by the sociability? More generally it reconciled or sharpened ofthat the (social) history (administrative) elites of the the United Kingdom for instance the far less studied than, and their political mentalities has been parliament and the international system of the Restoration era. monarchy, has now been well catered for by the excellent new Especially the monarchy II. William I and biographies ofWilliam researchers of often focused exclusively on the researchers Sattelzeit have the Dutch In his micro-study rise of on the Staphorst national state. modern Dutch the on the contrary, for instance, Tippe, Wubben (2010) Klaas mayor Ebbinge ofunderlined the survival institutions of many at a the Ancien Régime local level. On Dutch Orangism around 1800: L. Hansma, ‘Oproerkraaiers en waaghalzen. Orangisme in and D. Haks in: H. Velde te Nederland 1795-1813’, van orangisme Populair onder. (eds.), Oranje (Amsterdam 2014) nu tot Oranje van Willem An older study on conservatism137-156. in centuryVelema, eighteenth the late W.R.E. is: Dutch in the Conservatism and Enlightenment (1721- Luzac Elie of Thought The Political Republic: 1796) (Assen, Maastricht 1993). century: forSee the eighteenth J. Geerlings, ‘Hoe waren de verlicht genootschappen? De achttiende-eeuwse in recent sociabiliteit

28 27 forum

institutions.32 The large nwo funded research programme on ‘The persistence of civic identities in the Netherlands between 1747-1848’, which commences in 2015 at , will no doubt lead to important new insights and revisions of our understanding of the period. Especially relevant for the question of (dis)continuity after 1813 is, in the sixth and final place, the development of a ‘security culture’. In many ways the liberal police state or the authoritarian rule of law of the Restoration regime builds on the police apparatus developed during the Revolution and especially the Napoleonic era. The American historian Howard Brown has convincingly argued for the French case that one of the most important outcomes of the Revolution was the rise of the ‘security state’.33 Utrecht historian Beatrice de Graaf furthermore, has called attention to the rise of a ‘European security culture’ after the congress of Vienna.34 Also at other recent international conferences on the Restoration era from a comparative perspective the importance of the collaboration of several European States in the suppression of revolutionary and liberal organisations has been emphasised.35 Although important contributions have already been made, the development and character of the Dutch ‘security state’ from its origins in the Ancien Régime and the Napoleonic system, has yet to find its historian.36

Matthijs Lok (1974) is lecturer in Modern European History at the European Studies Department of the University of Amsterdam. His research is chiefly concerned with the political and historical culture of the Restoration period from a comparative perspective. Recent publications include: M.M. Lok, ‘Un oubli total du passé: The Political and Social Construction of Silence in Restoration Europe’, History and Memory 26 (Fall 2014) 40-75; M.M. Lok, ‘ “Renouer la chaîne des temps” ou “repartir à zéro”?: Passé, présent et futur en France et aux Pays-Bas (1814-1815)’, Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle 49:2 (2014) 79-92 and M.M. Lok (ed.), The Enlightenment and the Past. Themed issue of De Achttiende Eeuw 46:2 (2014). Email: [email protected].

32 J. Roelevink, ‘Hete adem en koude kermis. 35 J.-C. Caron and J.-P. Luis (eds.), Rien appris, De werkomstandigheden van de ambtenaren rien oublié?: Les Restaurations dans l’Europe van de secretarie van staat van Lodewijk postnapoléonienne (Rennes 2015). Napoleon’, bmgn-lchr 117:1 (2002) 1-24, 36 M. Rutjes, ‘Onderdrukt onbehagen. Het ontstaan doi: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.5608. van de repressieve staat in Nederland, 1780-1815’, 33 H.G. Brown, Ending the French Revolution: Violence, in: P. van Dam, J. Turpijn and B. Mellink (eds.), Justice and Repression from the Terror to Napoleon Onbehagen in de polder. Nederland in conflict sinds (Charlottesville 2006). 1795 (Amsterdam 2014) 23-42. 34 On 6-7 november 2014 a large conference was held in Amsterdam entitled: ‘Vienna 1815: The Making of a European Security Culture’.